Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6223Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros

Expand Messages
  • Chaz I
    Aug 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I'll second that...!!!
      People put Nano's in Speceville too; plenty of room all over for much larger caches but nooo.
      I thought about it a good two minutes and realized what was causing it throughout the whole game though.
      Too lazy to pack a decent cache or spend the time finding a hiding spot that was anything less creative than a Nano on a park bench.
       
      Chaz


      From: "thrak@..." <thrak@...>
      To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Ed & Julie Nelson <nelson143@...>
      Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:57:32 PM
      Subject: Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros

       

      It seems to have become "the fashion" to not list the cache size. I don't like it but there's not much one can do about it. I figure the point of the cache is for people to find it but I seem to be "old fashioned" in that regard. I also still like ammo cans whereas the current trend is for caches that can't even hold a small travel bug. It's trends of this sort that caused a number of the "seasoned cachers" (read old farts who used to be very active geocachers) to slack off to an alarming degree.

      On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
       

      Just a question for the group:

      Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?

      Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for nanos, since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.

      I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the size is not chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get filtered.

      Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?

      Ed

       

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic